Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday August 21, 2012 @07:48AM
from the putting-it-all-together dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Geek.com: "Microsoft has never really acknowledged or supported those among us who choose to build their own PCs. Windows licensing is usually offered in three forms: full retail product license, retail upgrade license, and OEM license. If you want to build your own machine at the moment, Microsoft expects you to buy a full retail copy of Windows. With Windows 8 that all changes and Microsoft has decided to actively support individuals who want to build their own machines or run Windows 8 as a virtual machine. That support comes in the form of a new license option called the Personal Use License for System Builder (PULSB). With PULSB, Microsoft is dumping the full retail license used in previous versions. Instead it is offering a version of Windows 8 to be installed as the main operating system on a single system meant for personal use, or in a virtual machine running on an existing PC (running any legal OS such as Windows 7, Mac OS X, or your favorite flavor of Linux)."

Why does it have to be a desperation move? Maybe Microsoft is looking to try to capitalize on revenue opportunities from people who either wouldn't consider Windows because of the full retail price or people who don't purchase additional copies because of the price. Desperation move or not, it's a great benefit to people who still need Windows and don't buy OEM systems.

To be honest, I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just give away Windows for free as a loss leader. It sounds like they're headed toward selling software via the Microsoft store a la Apple's app store and Google Play, in which case they'll be getting a cut of all software sales. I can understand selling some kind of "business connectivity" package that contains the domain connectivity bits that companies require at a premium. They're even getting into the hardware retail business [microsoft.com], as well as hammering hard on search (thus data mining and advertising), online services, console gaming, etc.

With their main operating system competitors a company that sells its OS as part of its hardware package (Apple) and a loose conglomerate developers that give away their operating system--and most of their productivity software--completely free (as in speech and beer), it just seems like it would be a smart move by Microsoft to completely embrace its alternative revenue streams and make a play to get legal copies of its core OS--and its connectivity to its software store where the real money is now--on every desktop, laptop, and tablet in the world. How many users, presented with the option of buying the MacOS upgrades for $20 or $25 a pop, would be mighty tempted to install Windows 8 on their Macs for free instead, especially if they know they won't have to pay for any more MacOS or Windows upgrades down the line? Microsoft could very well steal a chunk of market share from Apple on their own hardware.

The most frequent justification I see from Linux users (myself included) for using Linux is, "You never have to pay for upgrades to get the latest and greatest version again." Yeah, the free software is nice, but you can get free software (many times the exact same software--Firefox, LibreOffice, GIMP, Audacity, etc.) for Windows. Yeah, the principles behind open source are admirable--and make no mistake, I would continue to support them--but most average schmoes really couldn't care less that they can download and compile their own OS source code, and wouldn't have a clue how to go about it even if they did care.

From a purely business standpoint, I really think that giving Windows away for free is the best long-term strategy for Microsoft, and it would be perceived as a bold and welcome move by the industry as well as draw in a bunch more users who would then earn Microsoft money via software sales, advertising, and online services.

Last I read, they were making a lot of money selling operating systems. It's their bread and butter. They're already also making a lot of money selling other things, so why change a formula that is successful? I think most linux users and definitely most osx users are using the other operating systems for reasons other than the cost of the OS license, so I wonder how many new users a move like that would really attract.

Desperation? Not as in the case of survival. MS is extremely diversified on the software front and still has the defacto standard software for a majority of business applications (OS included). The only thing they might be desperate about is that other people are making money in a field to which MS has a relatively low barrier for entry. So, rather than calling them desperate, I'd suggest that they're really excited to enter a market that they're well poised to kick butt in. There's a decent chance they'll screw up the first iteration - but there's also a decent chance they've already done that (Win Phone 7).

If MS does Windows 8 right, they'll put the death nails in RIM's coffin while simultaneously slapping Android and iOS out of the business field entirely. A well implemented remote desktop alone could make that happen. Once MS has business adoption, education/private users will migrate to something that's most relevant/familiar. The existing mobile OSs will slowly fade to niche markets for those who like trendy items or those who like to tinker under the chassis (and I don't think I need to mention which is apple and which is linux).

So, in summary, MS is well poised to repeat the desktop successes of the '80s and 90's in the mobile market. They weren't Atari, Commodore, or Apple, (or even IBM), but MS won the day and (after a lot of development) they have quality product and a secure hold on the desktop market - the only thing they need to worry about is whether they can translate their dominance into a new hardware architecture. Worst case scenario: they screw up Windows 8 and don't manage world dominance until Windows 9. Unless iOS or Android are willing to license PC interface technology from MS (which would be a different type of win), MS has nothing to worry about. If anything, the only thing MS has to be desperate about is making Windows 7 another XP.

Quality product? Not exactly - why don't we revisit WinME and Vista? You are correct with the "secure hold on the desktop market", but there were a lot of questionable ethics involved there.

Your dream world of Microsoft's world dominance is really a nightmare, or at least a dystopia. Enjoy the dream though - if you can. As for me, I'll continue on with Unix-likes, no matter what the world does around me.

System builders aren't supposed to buy retail. System builders are supposed to - and do - buy OEM System Builder licenses. People building their own PC were supposed to use retail licenses, but instead were buying OEM from resellers who were violating their distribution agreement (they would routinely sell OEM Windows with a mouse, despite the fact that only a motherboard qualifies as a component with which you could bundle OEM Windows).

The issue has always been with a lot of piracy. The fallacy is the company is competing with free, that isn't the case, the problem is the company is competing with easier to get. Microsoft with its different licenses where the rates that people are willing to pay they are technically not support to pay. Even the guys who do not want a pirated copy but an original would get the OEM off eBay (something we really shouldn't be doing)... However if we can get a good price for the OS a lot of us will be willing to get the fully legit version.

How much for the stripped down version? I want a version of windows without Windows Media player, Internet Explorer, or even Windows Explorer. I have no need for any Windows, no accessories please, i use my own notepad, calculator, paint program.

Hell, just give me a version of Windows good enough to run Steam.

It's a nuisance because, I know MS makes a full OS, and it's a fine one. I still prefer Gnome or KDE even with their warts but Windows isn't useless. Windows has a lot less features than Linux Desktops

Depending on what you 'need' a stripped down Windows for, WINE might serve you pretty well. Sure it's not perfect, but it does a lot.

My company has a Windows app that occasional Mac users wanted to use. The standard answer was 'install Parallels', but I know it worked fine under WINE for Linux. It also worked fine under Crossover Mac. But I recently found the 'wineskins' project that lets you bundle your app with a full WINE setup (customized however your app needs it). Yeah, it's a big first-time inst

Not necessarily. Basically, a guy can build his own version of Windows, and leave out all the cruft, such as Explorer. We don't really need a shell to do installations. Hey, I've got it! Let's reconstitute DosShell!!

Windows 8 isn't even released yet and Gabe Newell has spoken out against it.As far as I'm concerned, he's the whole reason I haven't switched to Linux for my desktop yet.

The UI is being forced upon us as a tablet-like hybrid.

The more news comes out about it, the worse it gets.

If MS decides this pulsb license costs less than a full retail license, ok.If they decided it costs more than a full retail, no way. Unless it can be used on up to 3 systems. I use the same Win7 license

>Windows 8 isn't even released yet and Gabe Newell has spoken out against it.

so just for a laugh, I just asked the CIO of our (fortune 50) company what he thinks of gabe newells statements about windows 8.

"who?"

Ask your CIO, "Hey, do we sell software?"
If yes: Ask him what he thinks of MS's new W8 move to herd software developers into their walled garden and take a slice of the developer's profits.
If no: Ask him what he thinks about having to pay more per software license because software developers will increase their price so they're not losing out when MS takes their cut.
If he still says: "Meh, whatever," then quit your job fast.

I can't see how this really matters. The price of Win8 is low already primarily for the reason they want you to adopt it. The reason they accept a lower price to increase adoption is that they feel they'll be making up the difference in that 30% they are going to be charging for their software store.

I saw a poll where they asked if people would be adopting Win8. probably 85-95% of the people said no. Win8 is a disaster in the making. Win7 is just fine for now. It'll probably last another 5 years witho

I can't see how this really matters. The price of Win8 is low already primarily for the reason they want you to adopt it. The reason they accept a lower price to increase adoption is that they feel they'll be making up the difference in that 30% they are going to be charging for their software store.

It doesn't even require any nefarious motives, MS simply finally woke up and realized their was a huge disparity between their retail prices and the far lower volume prices. If Dell is only paying $30 a copy, why were they even trying to get $300 from joe home builder? It was stupid and they finally figured it out.

Not to mention that Microsoft's old price sheet literally dates back to the 1980s and OS/2. People used to pay $300 for Windows NT Workstation and install it on their $2500 PC, pretty good deal compared to Unix, eh? But it's 2012 now and nobody is paying that kind of money to install an OS on their $400 laptop.

I don;t know that this is as wonderful as the post would like to suggest. It's never been a problem to purchase and use the deeply discounted OEM versions for home-built PCs. SO, my first question is what does a PULSB license cost as compared to OEM. The second question is; will we still be able to purchase OEM?

Sure there were restrictions, but you didn't have to buy a complete PC, you just needed to by enough parts from a single shop (in a single purchase) to make a PC that would run... MB, RAM, Processor, storage, PSU plus the OS. Everything else you could get from wherever you liked.

"But why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac?" Developers who already have a Mac for developing Mac or iOS apps might need to dual-boot to Windows to test a web site in IE, port a Mac application to Windows, port a Mac game to XNA for Xbox Live Indie Games on Xbox 360, or port an iOS application to Windows Phone 7.

[A Mac user] might need to dual-boot to Windows to test a web site in IE [or] port a Mac application to Windows

The rMBP along with all other sealed or unsealed computers will be able to use the PULSB licence, which is supposedly going to cost about the same as the OEM licence. So where's the problem?

If one tests an application or web site only on Windows 8, then one can certify compatibility of an application only with Windows 8 or a web site only with those versions of Internet Explorer that run on Windows 8. I can see abandoning Windows XP in some markets, as security updates for that operating system will end in 20 months. But as of the second half of 2012, would it be acceptable to tell customers that Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not supported? I don't think so; I think it would constitute unacc

I'm hereby offering my services to everyone with which I'm not related. I'll buy your home-built PC with an OEM license, paying you in net 30 terms, under the condition that you will buy the machine back at full cost if I'm at all unsatisfied.

If the cost to me (including shipping) is greater than $0, I'm unsatisfied, and I hereby return the machine to you. I accept your payment as an erasure of my debt to you.

Not only it was buying OEM version (if you found a vendor) 100% legit all the time (even if presumably frown upon) but reselling+splitting the OEM license from the original hardware was uphold in courts already (look for OEM windows on German ebay for example).It's not that bad (for M$) because they still have a Microsoft tax on most retail laptops and now they probably won't repeat the "long-lived XP mistake" but I'm sure they were for quite a few years scared shitless by the spectre of a sane 2nd hand mar

I hate responding to AC's, but purchase of the OEM license has always been tied to some piece(s) of hardware purchased at the same time. I know there are lots of "workarounds" and these have been pretty liberally sold to home builders even without hardware, but the fact is it was/is a requirement for OEM Windows licenses.

I could care less about being able to purchase OEM anymore. The real question: Is the PULSB license transferable to new hardware, unlike OEM? This is why I would buy the retail licenses, they can be transferred to a new PC... OEM cannot and MS can deny your activation on new hardware if they suspect you are copying it.

Legality of the license aside (never bothered to read it, honestly), Microsoft has always been really good about letting you activate an OEM license on new hardware. The internet activation will generally fail after the first time, but the phone system works well - and if they do wind up making you talk to a real person, I have never had one of those reps refuse to help.

There is a blacklist, but it's very, very hard to get on. You basically have to be installing Windows onto different motherboards on a weekly basis. For that reason the only person I know to ever end up on that list did motherboard evaluations for a living.

I got a copy of windows, I really don't care if it's tied to HardDriveX that I bought for 10$ alongside it or not. If I ever replace the piece of hardware its techinically tied to, I don't go out of a get a new windows. If the hard drive dies, I'm supposed to not use that Windows License any more? Stuff that.

I get a copy of windows. It goes on my personal machine. End of story.I upgrade 20x or even just replace the whole thing top to bottom, that sa

The reactivation needed specific hardware (or minimum number of hardware changes) to be triggered. Usually a new hard drive would not trigger it, however a new hard drive, memory, etc would or if a disk controller or motherboard would. I had it go off when I did a reinstall and forgot to install the secondary controller I had. Quick call to MS got it reactivated.

I hate responding to AC's, but purchase of the OEM license has always been tied to some piece(s) of hardware purchased at the same time. I know there are lots of "workarounds" and these have been pretty liberally sold to home builders even without hardware, but the fact is it was/is a requirement for OEM Windows licenses.

At least in Sweden, the OEM version is for sale separately, as far as I can tell without any hardware requirements. It may be that the rules are different though. It's still quite expensive though, about the same price as the retail "upgrade" version.

Retail: This license is portable; users can upgrade/replace their hardware and take their copy of Windows with them. Furthermore Microsoft provides support, and you can even use a retail version to perform an upgrade (though MS sells cheaper upgrade editions for that). For those reasons however it's the most expensive (i.e. full price) version.

OEM/System Builder: The license is non-portable and becomes locked to the motherboard. Microsoft does not provide any support (that's the OEM's job), and OEM copies can only be used to do a fresh install. Because of this it's cheaper than retail.

Now, if only Microsoft listened to feedback. Even when there are screaming hoards of people with pitchforks and torches (Vista), Microsoft is loathe to listen to user, developer, MSDN, OEM or any other feedback. This, more than anything pegs them as behaving as a monopoly (even if they are soon to no longer be one).

It's their loss. When you make it painful to stay legal and compliant, they just drive people to piracy anyway. If your $130 OEM copy isn't legal you might as well pay $0.

They should just go back to the "good" old days and just charge a flat price and be done with it. Incidentally, those were the monopoly days, too, so obviously something was going well for Microsoft with that plan.

If they can funnel everyone who builds their own machines into buying this version, they can lock down the retail/OEM versions harder (which will appeal to manufacturers). Then, a few years down the lines, they can pull the PULSB version and voila - the walled garden they've always wanted!

Of course they won't *actually* do that, but can't help but think they're trying to create a distinction and secure boot probably plays into it a little bit.

"Lock down"? You mean like Win7, where you don't ever actually need to enter a product key and/or activate it to have a fully functional system?

Microsoft has always gamed the thin line between market share and enforcement; but for the first time in its history, I think they've finally acknowledged that people really do have viable alternatives. And the best way to preserve their real cash-cow, the Enterprise market? Give the product away to home users

I am not sure how it will turn out but my guess is that the PULSB license is for people who want to build a PC for personal use, the OEM license is for people who want to build a PC to sell and the full retail license is for people who want to build a PC for commercial use, perhaps in a small business environment where it is practical and cost effective to do so.

The old trick for DIY was to get the OEM license on the same receipt as the motherboard, CPU and HDD. Then it's a "system". This is a frustration for Linux builders because it means that if you don't buy the OEM license off the bat, you can't go back and add it later.... so some people (myself included) would get the OEM license, even if we don't use it.

This change means that there's one less reason to buy Windows. If you get stuck while using Linux, you can add it to Virtualbox later.

If it's not free (beer) then it's not going to make much of a difference converting unlicensed copies into licensed ones. Home built PCs often use unlicensed copies of Windows, among people who are building PCs to run Windows and games at least. You're not going to convert those people to legitimate users unless you can meet the current price they are paying now--which is zero.

For personal use I don't know why anyone would pay for a copy of Windows, especially when it means taking money away from spending it on hardware. When faced with the choice of a "legitimate" copy of Windows or the next highest graphics card or CPU, people will always choose the hardware that provides tangible improvement. A licensed copy of windows is bit-for-bit identical to the unlicensed one and offers no improvement other than some vague (false) sense of moral correctness. And that's entirely based on the user's subjective opinions on software licensing and the morality of imaginary property.

So whom is this licensing option really going to be for? I don't see it going anywhere, unless the price is so low as to be negligible, but then they'd be undercutting their other more profitable licensing options.

Well, I can tell you that I paid for Windows 7, Windows XP I got with the PC I bought before. I'd much rather know that I'm getting all the updates and I don't need to have 20 hacked files laying around and then I get my system bitching me. I'm very willing to spend 80 bucks or so every 3 years for that peace of mind. Plus XP lasted a lot longer than that, and I don't plan to upgrade to Windows 8 any time soon.

You are just making HUGE assumptions with no evidence to back them. "You're not going to convert those people to legitimate users", "why anyone would pay for a copy of Window", "people will always choose the hardware that provides tangible improvement".

Why do you think every single user out there is a pirate that would never convert? I for one used to pirate Windows, for my home machines. That included Win 3.1, 95, 98, NT 4.0, 2000 and XP. With Windows 7 I got myself a legitimate, but discounted, full version (I don't remember how much it was, $40 or something). If they offer Windows 8 for a low price, I'll buy it.

In 2010 I paid over $3000 to buy components to build my workstation/gaming machine. Paying an extra $40, i.e. round 1.3% more to get the right software added no significant burden to my budget. I have no problem to pay for a software that I use everyday single day for a couple of years as long as I don't feel it is a rip-off. Since this is./, yes, I boot into Linux when I need to.

If the price is a significant discount, they probably will convert some people. There are a lot of people who wouldn't pay $250 for a Windows license, particularly when they know that OEMs get them for more like $25. But if one were available for $50? Some would buy. Quite a few would pick one up if it were $25.

MS did something similar with Office. Normally it's some ridiculous price in the multiple hundreds, but for students they sometimes drop it down to $25. Most students will buy a copy for $25.

Not really. They'd just need to drop the price to something like $30. That was cheap enough to convince me to buy a legit Win7 license back when they were doing that promotion for people with a.edu email address.

Hmmm, not having run pirated Windows since the days of ME, I have to ask: Are you entirely sure the unlicensed copy is exactly the same? No restrictions in terms of support/updates and so on? I know certain hotfixes require that Genuine Advantage scheme, but I'm assuming there are ways around that.

You can get paid for your labor if you can find someone willing to pay for it, that is, you can get paid for the act of creating the software. But you have no right or claim to compensation for every copy that gets made after the fact. And you're committing a logical fallacy there about legality. You're appealing to authority, which says nothing about the correctness of the process or outcome. Our legal system reflects our morality, more or less, but often times it is at odds with it.

If you're betting on hackers not figuring out how to run the most popular OS on the hardware they own you're quite the risk taker. Either that, or you have an incredibly, and dare I say unjustified, faith in MS's ability to create secure software.

You've probably not dealt with unlicensed copies of Windows recently. There is no inconvenience. They install just like the real thing and run perfectly without issues. All the updates work, everything runs normally. Depending on what you got you might need to run a program one time to insert a license key but after that it's indistinguishable from the licensed copy.

It's not new; it's basically a pack of OEM licenses for small volume builders. The only real difference is that Microsoft is now technically allowing individuals to use System Builder packs for their own personal machines. I say "technically" because as you note we've been able to do this for years and years.

Microsoft has never given a hoot over this since there's always been a clear distinction between what can be done with OEM licenses (locked to the mobo) and what can be done with retail licenses (can be

Although final pricing for Windows 8 hasn’t been announced yet, the PULSB license will definitely be cheaper than purchasing a full retail license and probably on a par with OEM pricing. It is also expected that pricing in general for the new OS will be lower than what we currently pay for copies of Windows 7.

Hmmm... "not announced yet", "probably", "it is also expected"
Sounds like a lot of maybes.... I'll wait for the real prices to see if Microsoft actually is on to something.

- Personal -> they tie that your Windows-account, so you can't never ever sell it- Single System -> they tie that to your PC configuration, so you can't change your GPU without upgrading to full version

.. so they are just making another confusing license and hope to gain more users for their Anytime Upgrade. I mean, you do have to upgrade your PC if you are like selling your old PC with PULSB. This way Microsoft can charge for Windows 8 twice, yay!

I thought one of the biggest advantages to building your own computer was the ability NOT to pay microsoft for the privelidge of owning a computer. Sure there are one or 2 small places that allow you to buy a windows free, pre-built system, but usually with fairly limited selection of specs, and often no cheaper than a PC with windows installed (which tells me the company is probably paying Microsoft for the license, even though you aren't getting one (likely a bulk agreement where they pay microsoft per system sold instead of per license installed))Building your own computer has, for years, been the only way to ensure you got your ideal machine, without having to also buy a windows license to run an operating system you already own, or are allowed to get for free.I've built my own computers exclusively for nearly 20 years... though I must admit that I've slipped a bit here, I'm starting to look to a new computer now, and I haven't kept up with the latest news on components, It's not as easy as it once was to figure out which part is better than which other one, and without having kept up it's a bit of a daunting task to select the right parts this time... I'm debating just buying a pre-built system, but I don't really want to go that route after nearly 20 years of doing it myself.

True but if you have needs outside of the norm building a machine with windows is still a cost effective method, especially if you have a need out of the norm. For example I am going to be building a new machine here in the near future to replace the outdated Athalon64 x2 box I am running at home. It is getting really slow and a bit flaky after many years of use and my needs have grown beyond what it is capable of. As I don't need a massively faster processor like the new i7 something like a new middle of t

The small brands generally include windows too. and very few will remove it from the price if asked.I did state that there are some places that sell windows free machines. But usually a very limited selection of specs, and often at higher prices (due to lack of volume)building your own has usually been a way to keep prices down, while getting your ideal machine, and not paying for the windows license you don't want or need.

Funny, my experience with modern linux distributions has been that they "just work" unlike windows. Every time I sit down in front of a new windows install I get frustrated by the lack of codec support, or the lack of included DVD software, or the fact that each individual piece of software has a completely seperate and unrelated updater cluttering up the system tray, or a myriad of other issues. In contrast, on linux, I boot up, and it just works, any file I throw at it it opens, all the software is kept u

If you had an old windows system you were upgrading, you bought the upgrade version.If you were cheap and didn't need microsoft support you bought the system builders/OEM version.If you had a system without an OS (meaning you built it yourself) you bought the full retail version.

I can understand the potential of a VM'd license, I don't understand offering one for people that "build their own systems". They already have two versions that work for that.

Am I the only one who thinks this is Microsoft's attempt (pretty good one I think) at having an offering that appeases the tech crowd so we don't rattle our cages and scare the normals when all the non-home-made PC's start coming out with windows 8 locked down by the UEFI (If I'm remembering the right term for the new boot method).

If that is the case, seems like the right response. If all the hp/dell/lenovo/acer/what have you cannot have their OS's replaced, many more will be home building who wouldn't h

Probably. This is just an example of capitalism run amok. First they announce that you will have to have UEFI for new PCs with Windows "for security reasons". Then they offer a possibility to run Windows without it. Clearly, the only security M$ is interested in is the security of their wallet.

So far as I can tell from the hype, Windows 8 is supposed to be a dumbed down version of 7 optimized for the touch screens of tablets and phones.

People who build their own computers do not build tablets or phone, and typically want MORE OS than you basic user. They are more likely to want the Pro, or the Enterprise version of the OS, not the Home basic, and certainly not something limited beyond even that.

Sure some builder and makers play with some touch screens, usually for the front of some massive tower to control fans and lights and stuff like that, but not as an OS.

So MS is making a special version of the Windows 8 OS for "Personal Use". To me that tells me that it will probably be limited in someway that the others are not, particulary if it is cheap.

So a OS that is designed to be limited, and a version of that, that will be even more limited, for users who want more than normal? I might be guessing, but the demand for such a thing might be non-existant, which is maybe why they are doing it.

Though my interest is piqued for the personal licence anyway. The fact that they arn't ignoring us is something at least, even though perhaps their thinking may be wrong. We shall see.

It seems like this is a replacement for "full retail" and what they've really dropped is the "Generic, shrinkwrap OEM license" package which is what personal system builders used to buy (with debatable legality).

Unfortunately, I suspect that's also what the handful of nice PC makers who currently sell PCs with Windows as an optional extra offer. So maybe MS's plan is to throw a spanner in that - perhaps they'll have to sign up to a 'proper' OEM licensing deal with MS, and sell PCs with a "proper" vendor-customised Windows pre-installed (...and be 'discouraged' from selling bare PCs).

That would explain the otherwise convoluted wording "You may not install the software as an operating system on any computer except one that you are building for your own use or as an operating system running on a local virtual machine or a separate partition." when they just could say "You can install this on one computer, owned by you, for your personal use". (see the ZDNet article) and the demise of the Full Retail version. I can't believe that they want to stop people replacing the whole OS on their Mac or Linux PC with Windows, but it does make it clear that a PD maker couldn't sling one of these licenses in with an otherwise bare, but ready-made, PC.

If I choose to run Windows as my primary OS I want the full monty, not something stripped down, and you just know MS has stripped SOMETHING out

Like the box and manual? That was the difference between the retail and OEM versions of Windows, and from the article it seems like this new PULSB release is just the OEM release by another name, as most system builders (if not using their work's volume licence key anyway;) probably bought the OEM version this makes a lot of sense.

I don't ever buy the OEM, because I believe (possibly mistakenly) that you can't re-install from it properly, and you didn't have the flexibility to upgrade some of the components (specifically the motherboard).

The last computer I bought, I insisted on getting the full boxed retail version. I've always seen the OEM license as being more restricted. Whether or not that's accurate, I'm not entirely sure.

I've reinstalled my OEM copy of Win7 Pro probably 4 times now, and one of those was after a motherboard upgrade (and 2 of the others were hard drive swap outs). Also I believe my fiance reinstalled with my copy on his machine after he lost his copy. They really don't care.

I have always used OEM. Reinstall works perfectly, and you can upgrade anything you like. The only thing is if you upgrade something big like the motherboard, you won't be able to internet activate any more. You can still activate over the phone, however. The only times I had to speak to an MS rep instead of using the automated system, I explained that I upgraded my hardware and they said "OK", then helped me out. MS is actually really good about that stuff in my experience.

I'm guessing the catch is that since it's priced like the OEM version it's tied to the hardware you install it on, on the positive side it's a proper end user license, not a system builder's version. It means you don't have to sell it with hardware - not that anyone cared when I bought it alone - and you probably have a slightly better support - in the OEM agreement you essentially take over part of the support responsibility. I guess it doesn't matter much but if you're first doing the effort of making it

This is just another attempt at Microsoft for eroding the userbase of it's primary competitor, Apple.

FTFY

Unless you consider Android Linux. That is a complacently separate debate. But Microsoft vs. the normal GNU/Linux distributions Microsoft is still strong, and not loosing much ground to them (Sorry Linux for Desktop Fans). But Apple has been sucking up a lot of Microsoft Thunder.Mac Sales are gaining market share (at the expense of Microsoft), iPod, then iPhone then iPad, sucked up Microsoft growth mar